list_subdivisions
Estados/subdivisões com canal tocável.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| country | No | Restringe a um país, ISO 3166-1 alpha-2. |
grade
by net.gradetv
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Changed1 schema field changed
- added
Input schema / properties / country / descriptionAdded value: +"Restringe a um país, ISO 3166-1 alpha-2."
- First observed
TDQS
C2.3/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only hints at a filtering condition (subdivisions with a tappable channel) but does not explain what that means, what the output structure is, or any ordering/pagination behavior. This is inadequate for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short (one phrase), which is concise, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently informative. There is no fluff, but it lacks essential content, so it earns a mid-range score for conciseness rather than a high one.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description should at least clarify the meaning of 'canal tocável' and differentiate it from sibling list tools. It fails to do so, leaving the agent with insufficient context to call it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The single parameter 'country' is fully documented in the schema (100% coverage), and the description adds no additional meaning about it. Per the rubric, baseline is 3 when schema coverage is high, and the description does not augment or contradict the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description is a noun phrase ('Estados/subdivisões com canal tocável') rather than a clear verb+resource statement. It doesn't explicitly say 'list' or describe the action, and 'canal tocável' is ambiguous (tappable/clickable channel) without further context. It fails to distinguish from sibling tools like list_cities or list_countries.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling list tools (list_cities, list_countries, list_languages, etc.). The description provides no context for selecting this tool over alternatives, and no exclusions or preconditions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
C2.9/5.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool addresses a distinct resource/action: favorites vs. history vs. watch recording are clearly separate, and the NSFW consent/pass tools are unambiguous. Even closely related tools like 'get_channel', 'get_channel_guide', and 'legacy_stream' serve different purposes. No two tools appear to do the same thing.
Naming Consistency4/5
Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern (get_, list_, create_, add_, remove_, etc.) with clear conventions. A few exceptions exist like 'billing', 'geo', 'health', and 'me', which are nouns and break the pattern slightly, but the overall style is predictable and readable.
Tool Count2/5
With 47 tools, the server is far beyond the typical well-scoped range (3-15). While the API covers a broad domain (auth, catalog, chat, comments, billing, NSFW), this many tools would be better split into smaller, focused servers. The count feels bloated and could overwhelm an agent.
Completeness4/5
The tool surface is quite comprehensive for a streaming service: it includes auth, user preferences, favorites, history, catalog search, channel details, comments, chat, NSFW consent/passes, billing, and reporting. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no update/delete for categories/groups, no comment editing), but these are not critical dead ends.